The following paragraphs have been added to the Reasons for Penalties document relating to the Sines, Crickmore, Milczarek, Quinn, Doe, Fairley et al. case:
Nick Gold and Peter Gold
32. The Panel adjourned consideration of their cases until written submissions were filed.
33. Those submissions were received on 16 and 19 December 2011, and having considered them, the Panel decided to exercise the power to exclude Mr Nick Gold and Mr Peter Gold under Rule (A)64.
34. While it was of course recognised that the Panel had concluded they were not aware of the arrangements that Mr Sines and Mr Crickmore made in a number of instances to secure jockeys’ agreement to ride to lose if necessary, they were engaged from the outset in providing Mr Sines and Mr Crickmore with their largest and most convenient route to the lay betting markets. And they did this in the knowledge that inside information inspired the selections, even if they did not know that the information sometimes extended to include agreements by jockeys to lose if necessary.
35. The Panel therefore imposed exclusions, with a direction that an application to remove this should not be considered in the case of Mr Nick Gold for 7 years and should not be considered in the case of Mr Peter Gold for 5 years.